Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Schweber

Schweber, S. S. (2000). In the Shadow of the Bomb. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. [Pg.144]

Eugen Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics, Chapter 21, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1961 Schweber, Bethe, and de Hoffmann, Mesons and Fields, Vol. 1, Section 8a, Harper and Row, New York, 1955. [Pg.441]

S. S. Schweber, Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, Section 6, Harper and Row, New York, 1961. [Pg.447]

Colleagues and friends have been generous and kind in their criticisms, commentary, and advice on various parts of the manuscript. I am grateful to Alexi Assmus, Ted Benfey, Micheline Charpentier-Morize, Mi Gyung Kim, Roald Hoffmann, Karl Hufbauer, Peter Loewenberg, John Servos, and especially Sam Schweber. Terry Shinn offered provocative comments on my early thinking about models and metaphors, as did John Heilbron on my initial reflections about the historical demarcation of physics and chemistry. [Pg.18]

Quoted in C. G. Knott, Life and Scientific Work of Peter Guthrie Tait (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1911) 248.1 thank S. S. Schweber for this reference. [Pg.124]

But it was not really until 1931, when Slater and Pauling independently developed methods to explain directed chemical valence by orbital orientation that it can truly be said that a chemical quantum mechanics, rather than an application of quantum mechanics to chemistry, had been created. In a study of Slater, S. S. Schweber notes the distinction between the Heitler-London-Pauling-Slater theory and the Heitler-London theory. Heitler and London successfully explained the electron-valence pair on the basis of the Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck theory of spin. Slater and Pauling explained the carbon tetrahedron. This second explanation distinguishes quantum chemistry from quantum physics.2... [Pg.244]

See S. S. Schweber, "The Young John Clarke Slater and the Development of Quantum Chemistry," HSPS 20 (1990) 339406, on 386. Schweber accepts the year 1927 as a "convenient birthdate for quantum chemistry"... [Pg.244]

Quotation from Sommerfeld, Atomic Structures, 79. On p. vi, Sommerfeld notes that in the chapter on the natural system of the elements, "the former discussions of molecular models and atomic volumes have been thoroughly pared down." At Harvard in 1925, Edwin Kemble s course in quantum mechanics included the second edition of Sommerfeld s Aufbau, according to Schweber (1990 348). Similarly, Joseph Hirschfelder was reading it as an undergraduate at Yale according to Hirschfelder, "My Adventures in Theoretical Chemistry," Ann.Rev.P.Chem. 33 (1983) 129, on 4. [Pg.246]

John Slater later expressed regret, even anger, that Niels Bohr deterred him from the same path of reasoning while he was a postdoctoral fellow in Copenhagen in 1923. See Schweber (1990 351352). [Pg.250]

For a discussion of the self-consistent field, see Schweber (1990 375376). Hartree became professor of theoretical physics at Manchester and returned to Cambridge University after the war. For his own account of his method, see Douglas Hartree, The Calculations of Atomic Structures (New York Wiley, 1957). [Pg.252]

Schweber, "Young John Clarke Slater," on Slater as well as J. C. Slater, Solid State and Molecular Theory ... [Pg.256]

Quoted in Schweber (1990 373), from John Slater, "A Physicist of the Lucky Generation," MS, MIT Archives. [Pg.261]

John Slater, "The Self-Consistent Field and Structure of Atoms," Physical Review 32 (1928) 339348. See discussion in Schweber (1990 376377). [Pg.261]

John Slater, "Note on the Structure of the Groups X03," Physical Review 38 (1931) 325329 and "Molecular Energy Levels and Valence Bonds," Physical Review 38 (1931) 11091141. See Schweber, "Young John Clarke Slater," 388390. [Pg.264]

Quoted in Schweber (1990), from a 1950 document proposing a molecular theory group in the Physics Department at MIT. [Pg.264]

Schweber, "Young John Clarke Slater," 399, quoting from "The New Quantum Mechanics," Chemical Reviews 5 (1928) 467507. Also Aaron J. Ihde, Chemistry, as Viewed from Bascom s Hill A History of the Chemistry Department at the University of Wisconsin at Madison (Madison University of Wisconsin Department of Chemistry, 1990) 165166. [Pg.266]

Why this emphasis Schweber has portrayed Slater as a man who developed a deep feeling of both inferiority and competitiveness toward his European mentors and peers in the fields of atomic physics and quantum electrodynamics. Slater was not alone in this reaction, as Henry James made clear. Slater, like other American physicists and chemists, used his influence in Boston, New York, and Washington circles, as well as his position within his own institution, to build up American science in an area where Americans could take a competitive lead. 107 Donnan had written Lewis in 1921 that "you are making old Europe sit up some. If it wasn t for Planck, Einstein, Rutherford, and Bragg, we should be in a bad way." 108 But it was not enough for Europeans to sit up "some" they must be made to gawk. [Pg.269]

Schweber and others have argued that quantum chemistry was a quintessentially American discipline, with Mulliken, Slater, Van Vleck, Urey, Pauling, Edward Condon, Oppenheimer, Ralph Kronig, I. I. Rabi, Clarence Zener, David Dennison, Philip M. Morse, Eyring, John G. Kirkwood, George E. [Pg.269]

See Mulliken, Life, 136 and S. S. Schweber, "Shelter Island, Pocono, and Oldstone The Emergence of American Quantum Electrodynamics after World War II," Osiris, 2d ser., 2 (1986) 265302, on 277. John Van Vleck was present (279). [Pg.275]

Personal letter from S. S. Schweber, 20 April 1992. Also, [Lord] Alexander Todd, "Summing Up," in Further Perspectives in Organic Chemistry. Ciba Foundation Symposium 53 (new series). To Commemorate Sir Robert Robinson and His Research (Amsterdam Elsevier, 1978) 203204 and Carl Djerassi, lecture at University of Oklahoma, Norman, 19 November 1992. [Pg.284]

The emphasis on environment and on the molecule acting in an environment is not trivial, for it lies at the heart of the conceptual aims and problems of the chemical discipline, as outlined in this book. Commenting on the difference between chemists and physicists, Mulliken suggested that the difference is that "chemists love molecules, and get to know them individually." In contrast, he suggested, "physicists are more concerned with fields of force and waves than with the individual personalities of molecule or matter."48 In an interview with Schweber, Wilson corroborated Mulliken s point of view, saying that for his part, "I love my molecules."49... [Pg.297]

Schweber, S. S. An introduction to relativistic quantum field theory. Evanston, Illinois ... [Pg.162]


See other pages where Schweber is mentioned: [Pg.144]    [Pg.1279]    [Pg.1293]    [Pg.453]    [Pg.517]    [Pg.580]    [Pg.642]    [Pg.782]    [Pg.245]    [Pg.248]    [Pg.250]    [Pg.253]    [Pg.256]    [Pg.261]    [Pg.265]    [Pg.269]    [Pg.270]    [Pg.271]    [Pg.284]    [Pg.385]    [Pg.79]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.78 ]




SEARCH



SCHWEBER 11 Quantum Electrodynamics

© 2024 chempedia.info